Common Sense wrote:

"A new intelligence report commissioned by the White House says that the ISIS terror group will grow in numbers and territory unless it suffers significant losses in Iraq and Syria."

Based on this intelligence report there MUST be "significant losses" to stop ISIS growth!
I would task the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the pentagon to submit 3 different plans that would achieve the goal of significant losses. Then after review choose the plan and give it 100% support, money, logistics, manpower. The pentagon would control the war, No politics!. Explain to the country there is no easy way to fix this problem and that it is a national security problem that must be won at all costs! A massive and devastating strike if that is what it takes! 
When the goal is reached then our troops comes home.
 

 
Civilian control of the military is a prerequisite feature of a stable democracy.
 

Goose wrote:

Common Sense wrote:

"A new intelligence report commissioned by the White House says that the ISIS terror group will grow in numbers and territory unless it suffers significant losses in Iraq and Syria."

Based on this intelligence report there MUST be "significant losses" to stop ISIS growth!
I would task the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the pentagon to submit 3 different plans that would achieve the goal of significant losses. Then after review choose the plan and give it 100% support, money, logistics, manpower. The pentagon would control the war, No politics!. Explain to the country there is no easy way to fix this problem and that it is a national security problem that must be won at all costs! A massive and devastating strike if that is what it takes! 
When the goal is reached then our troops comes home.
 

 
Civilian control of the military is a prerequisite feature of a stable democracy.
 

You state the obvious! The president chooses the plan and instructs the pentagon to carry out the orders!! Civilian control! 

Rongone wrote:

Brady & Common: based on your agreement, then I guess you are both OK with a bunch of your family, friends, and neighbors coming home in a box, or with physical and/or mental problems directly related to combat. You would also be in favor of providing the required care of those veterans to their grave at no cost to the veterans, even if it requires increased taxes to provide that care and support.

Heck, maybe you'd even be in favor of volunteering your services to the cause for the next several years.

Hoooorah!

 
Please show me anywhere that I made any type of argument that would have you come to that conclusion.  I have never said what I would or would not do in regards to ISIS nor have I agreed with anyone as to what they would do.

Just because Common Sense said he agreed with my comments in this topic, does not mean I agree with how he thinks the problem should be solved.

Brady Bunch wrote:

Rongone wrote:

Brady & Common: based on your agreement, then I guess you are both OK with a bunch of your family, friends, and neighbors coming home in a box, or with physical and/or mental problems directly related to combat. You would also be in favor of providing the required care of those veterans to their grave at no cost to the veterans, even if it requires increased taxes to provide that care and support.

Heck, maybe you'd even be in favor of volunteering your services to the cause for the next several years.

Hoooorah!

 
Please show me anywhere that I made any type of argument that would have you come to that conclusion.  I have never said what I would or would not do in regards to ISIS nor have I agreed with anyone as to what they would do.

Just because Common Sense said he agreed with my comments in this topic, does not mean I agree with how he thinks the problem should be solved.

 

You are correct. I should not have included you.

Rongone is correct. . His position does not fit the definition. On the other hand, Your response to him fits the definition of a strawman argument.